CASE No.01
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO. 326 OF 2010.
M/s. Sureshot Advertising. …. ..Petitioner.
vs.
City Realcom Limited. …. ..Respondent.
Mr. Milind K. Kadam, i/b. Ashoka Law Firm, for Petitioner.
None for Respondent.
CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE :9TH MARCH, 2012.
P.C.
1. The above Company Petition was admitted by an order passed by this Court dated 28th October 2010. In paragraph 4 of the said order, it is recorded that “It is clear that the Defendant has abandoned its registered office and therefore the statutory notice as well as the copy of the Petition is returned to the Petitioner with the postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’. The claim of the Petitioner has remained uncontroverted by the Company. It is, therefore, established that an amount of Rs. 24,70,738/- is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner. The Company Petition is therefore admitted.”
2. The notice sought to be served under Rule 28 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 is also returned unclaimed. None appear for the Company even at this stage though the Company Petition has been advertised as can be seen from the Affidavit of Publication dated 10th January 2011. The Company Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
[ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]
CASE No.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.326 OF 2010
M/s. Sureshot Advertising ... Petitioner
V/s.
City Realcom Ltd. .. Respondents.
Ms. Sweta Jain i/b. M/s. Ashoka Law Firms, for Petitioner.
CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.
DATE :28th October, 2010
P.C.:-
1. By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought winding up of the Respondent-Company City Realcom Ltd., (the company).
2 The Petitioner is a proprietary concern of Shri Nilesh Vora who is engaged in the business of Advertising. In the year 2009, the Company approached the Petitioner for publication of its advertisements in various news papers. The Petitioner as per the requirements of the Company, got their advertisements published in various news papers and raised various bills for the same which were accepted and acknowledged by the Company without any demand.
3 According to the Petitioner, despite repeated request the Company failed to clear the outstanding amounts. The Petitioner therefore served a statutory notice dated 21st July, 2010 at the registered address of the Company and demanded their dues aggregating to Rs.24,70,738/- together with interest thereon from the Company. The said notice was returned to the Petitioner with the remark Unclaimed. The Petitioner thereafter, filed the present Company Petition seeking winding up of the Company. The Petitioner has attempted to serve a copy of the Petition at the registered address of the Company which was also returned with the postal endorsement , Unclaimed. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, therefore, submits that as of date an amount of Rs.24,70,738/- is due and payable to the Petitioner by the Company as per particulars of claim (Exh. B to the petition) with interest at the rate of 24%. It is submitted that the Company is unable to pay its dues and deserves to be wound up.
4 From the above facts, it is clear that the company has abandoned its registered office and therefore the statutory notice as well as the copy of the Petition is returned to the Petitioner with the postal endorsement Unclaimed. The claim of the petitioner has remained uncontroversial by the Company. It is, therefore, established that an amount of Rs.24,70,738/- is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner. The Company Petition is therefore admitted.
5 The Petition shall be advertised by the Petitioner in two local newspapers, namely Free Press Journal(in English), Maharashtra Times (in Marathi) and in the Maharashtra Government Gazette. The Petitioner shall within a period of one week from today, deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court towards the publication charges, with intimation to the Company Registrar, failing which the Company Petition shall stand dismissed for non prosecution.
6 S.O. to 18th November, 2010.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.)
CASE No.03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO. 234 OF 2010.
Prasad Mhatre. ..Petitioner.
v/s.
City Limouzines (India) Limited ..Respondent.
Mr. Anoshak S. Daver, a/w. Mr. Sayeed Mulani, i/b. Mulani & Co., for ---Petitioner.
None for Respondent. ...
CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE : 1ST OCTOBER 2010.
P.C.
1. By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought winding up of the Respondent Company City limouzines (India) Limited (the Company).
2. The Petitioner entered into an Agreement dated 18th January 2006 with the Company under which the Petitioner deposited Rs.1,09,831/ with the Company under the scheme known as Car Finances for Omni (the said Agreement).
3.As per the said Agreement, the Company agreed topay compensation/benefit to the Petitioner for a sum of Rs.4,000/per month for sixty months commencing from February2006 and also issued to the Petitioner 700 preference sharesworth Rs. 100/ each aggregating to Rs.70,000/. As per the said Agreement, the Company paid the monthly compensation of
of Rs.4000/ to the Petitioner from February 2006 to July 2009.However, since August 2009, the Company failed and neglected topay to the Petitioner the monthly compensation of Rs.4,000/ aggregating to Rs.24,000/.
4. It is submitted that the Company has duped thousandsof investors like the Petitioner and is indebted to the said investors tothe tune of several hundred crores of rupees. It is submitted that theCompany had moved this Court under sections 391 and 393 of theCompanies Act, 1956 to obtain its permission to hold meetings ofequity shareholders and preference shareholders and unsecuredcreditors of the Company. However, the said meeting has not beenheld till date. The Directors of the said Company were arrested bythe economic offences and various economic offences were registeredagainst them.
5.It is submitted that since there was no sign of paymenttowards the monthly compensation by the Company, the Petitionerby its Advocate's letter dated 22nd February 2010 recorded some ofthe aforesaid facts and called upon the Company to pay to thePetitioner an amount of Rs.26,880/ together with interest at the rateof 24% per annum within 21 days from the receipt of the notice.However, the Company failed and neglected to pay the said amountand has also not responded to the said notice. Though the statutorynotice was served at the registered address of the Company, the samehas been returned with the endorsement 'left'. Under thecircumstances, the Petitioner filed the above Company Petition andsought to serve the same on the Company at its registered address.However, the packet containing a copy of the Petition has beenreturned by the postal authorities with the endorsement 'left'. ThePetitioner has tendered the print outs of the search taken on thewebsite of the Registrar of Companies (ROC), which shows that tilldate, the registeredaddress of the Company on the records of ROC isthe same, i.e. where the Petitioner has sought to serve the statutorynotice as well as the Company Petition.
6.Under the circumstances, it is submitted that theRespondent Company is unable to carry on its business and is unableto pay its debts and hence is liable to be wound up under thedirections of this Court. It is submitted that the Petitioner isapprehensive that the Company may sell off and fritter away with itsassets. It is submitted that therefore, it is in the interest of justice,equity and good conscience and also in the interest of the creditors ofthe Company that pending the hearing and final disposal of thePetition, the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay, or some otherfit and proper person be appointed as Provisional Liquidator of theCompany with all powers under the Companies Act, 1956.
7.In my view, the Petitioner has clearly established that anamount of Rs.28,851/ is due and payable to him by the Company onthe date of filing of the Petition along with interest thereon at therate of 24% as agreed by the Company under the Agreement dated18th January 2006. As submitted by the Petitioner, several offenceshave been registered against the Directors of the Company forvarious economic offences committed by them. The Company hasabandoned its registered office and has also not informed theRegistrar of Companies where the registered office is now shifted.The statutory notice and the Petition are, therefore, deemed to havebeen served on the Company. The allegations made in the statutorynotice and the petition have, therefore, remained uncontroverted.Iam, therefore, satisfied that the Company is unable to pay its debts,has stopped its business and abandoned its registered office and islikely to sell off and siphon of its assets.
8. Under the circumstances, I pass the following order :
(i) The above Company Petition stands admitted and ismade returnable on 28th October 2010.
(ii) The Petition shall be advertised by the Petitioner intwo local newspapers, namely “Free Press Journal” (in English),“Maharashtra Times” (in Marathi) and in the MaharashtraGovernment Gazette. The Petitioner shall within a period of one week from today, deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/ with theProthonotary and Senior Master of this Court towards the publicationcharges, with intimation to the Company Registrar, failing which theCompany Petition shall stand dismissed for nonprosecution.
(iii) Pending the hearing and final disposal of thePetition, the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay is appointed asProvisional Liquidator of the Company who shall forthwith take charge interalia of the properties and records of the Company.
(iv) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.
[ S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. ]
CASE No 4.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.234 OF 2010
Prasad Mhatre ....Petitioner
V/s.
City Limouzines (India) Ltd. ....Respondent
Mr.A.S. Daver i/b Mulani & Co. for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATE : 3RD DECEMBER, 2010.
P.C. :-
1. This is a petition for winding up of the company on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts. By an order dated 1.10.2010, the company petition is admitted and ordered to be advertised.
2. The undertaking to file an affidavit proving publication within two weeks from today is accepted.
3. By the said order dated 1.10.2010, the learned Judge set out the facts of the case in detail. The company was absent when the petition was admitted. The company is absent even today. There is no affidavit in reply. There is nothing that persuades me to take a different view of the matter today. Mr.Daver states that Rule 28 has been complied with.
4. In the circumstances and for the reasons set out in the order dated 1.10.2010, the company petition is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The petitioner shall be entitled to the costs fixed at Rs. 10,000/- to be recovered in the winding up proceedings.
CASE NO.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.235 OF 2010
Avinash P. Jagtap . ...Petitioner
V/s.
City Realcom Ltd. ...Respondent
Mr.Anushok Daver i/b Mulani & Co. for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATE : 3RD DECEMBER, 2010.
P.C. :-
1. This is a petition for winding up of the company on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts.
2. The parties had entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 24.4.2008 under which the respondent allotted the petitioner a redeemable preference shares of Rs.1,07,000/- and to secure the repayment thereof allotted an area of 20 sq.ft. in the proposed building.
3. The project has not come up. The entire amount has not been paid. There is balance outstanding of about Rs.57,000/-.
4. By an order dated 28.10.2010 in Company Petition No.325 of 2010 against the same respondent has been admitted.
5. In the circumstances, the company petition is admitted. The advertisement is dispensed with.
CASE NO.6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO. 235 OF 2010.
Avinash Parshuram Jagtap. ..Petitioner.
vs.
City Realcom Limited ..Respondent.
Mr. A. Davar, i/b. Mulani & Co., for Petitioner.
None for Respondent.
CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE : 9TH MARCH, 2012.
P.C.
Since the Company is already wound up by an order of thisCourt in Company Petition No. 326 of 2010, the Petitioner shall filetheir claim before the Official Liquidator and get the same adjudicated. The Company Petition is accordingly disposed of.
[ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]
CASE NO. 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.325 OF 2010
M/s. Sureshot Advertising .. Petitioner
V/s.
City Limouzines (I) Ltd., .. Respondents.
Ms. Sweta Jain i/b. M/s. Ashoka Law Firms, for Petitioner.
CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.
DATE :28th October, 2010
P.C.:-
1.By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought winding up of the Respondent-Company City Limouzines (I) Ltd., (the company).
2. The Petitioner is a proprietary concern of Shri Nilesh Vora who is engaged in the business of Advertising. In the year 2009, the Company approached the Petitioner for publication of its advertisements in various news papers. The Petitioner as per the requirements of the Company, got their advertisements published in various news papers and raised various bills for the same which were accepted and acknowledged by the Company without any demand.
3. According to the Petitioner, despite repeated requests, the Company failed to clear the outstanding amounts. The Petitioner therefore served a statutory notice dated 21st July, 2010 at the registered address of the Company and demanded their dues aggregating to Rs.1,87,985 together with interest thereon from the Company. The said notice was returned to the Petitioner with the remark Unclaimed. The Petitioner thereafter, filed the present Company Petition seeking winding up of the Company. The Petitioner has attempted to serve a copy of the Petition at the registered address of the Company which was also returned with the postal endorsement Unclaimed. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, therefore, submits that as of date an amount of Rs.1,87,985/- is due and and payable to the Petitioner by the Company as per particulars of claim (Exh. Bto the petition) with interest at the rate of 24%. It is submitted that the Company is unable to pay its dues and deserves to be wound up.
4.From the above facts, it is clear that the company has abandoned its registered office and therefore, the statutory notice as well as the copy of the Petitionis returned to the Petitioner with the postal endorsement Unclaimed. The claim of the petitioner has remained uncontroverted by the Company. It is, therefore, established that an amount of Rs.1,87,985/- is due and payable by the Company to the Petitioner. The Company Petition is therefore admitted.3 28-325-10.
5. In view of the order dated 1st October, 2010 passed in Company Petition No.234 of 2010, advertisement of the admission of the present Company Petition is dispensed with.
6. S.O. to 18th November, 2010.
(S.J.KATHAWALLA,J.)
CASE No. 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO.325 OF 2010
M/s.Sureshot Advertising ....Petitioner
V/s.
City Limouzines (I) Ltd. ....Respondent
Ms.Shweta Jain i/b Ashoka law Firm for the Petitioner.
None for the Respondent.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.
DATE : 3RD DECEMBER, 2010.
P.C. :-
1. This is a petition for winding up of the company on the ground that the company is unable to pay its debts.
2. According to the petitioner, an mount of about Rs.1,88,000/- is due and payable by the respondent to it for the services rendered by the petitioner. The petitioner carried out certain advertising jobs on behalf of the respondent and invoices were raised for the same on 30.6.2009. The respondent did not deny the bill or raise any objections in respect thereof. There was no reply to the statutory notice.
3. By an order dated 28.10.2010 this Company Petition against the same respondent has been admitted.
4. In the circumstances, the company petition is admitted. The advertisement is dispensed with.
CASE No. 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMPANY PETITION NO. 325 OF 2010.
M/s. Sureshot Advertising. ..Petitioner.
vs.
City limouzines (I) Limited. ..Respondent.
Mr. Milind K. Kadam, i/b. Ashoka Law Firm, for Petitioner.
None for Respondent.
CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.
DATE : 9TH MARCH, 2012.
P.C.
Since the Company is already wound up by an order of this Court in Company Petition No. 234 of 2010, the Petitioner shall file their claim before the Official Liquidator and get the same adjudicated. The Company Petition is accordingly disposed of.
[ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]
Thanks
Dr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, M.Phil (Law), Ph.D
Advocate
No. 462. Addl Law Chambers
High Court of Madras
Chennai-600 104
MB: 9884102961
No comments:
Post a Comment